Please, someone, tell me that a fair majority of the information from pages 1 to 100 (approximately) is superfluous. It hurts trying to fit all that brick-a-brack into my brain... :-X :'(<br /><br />I am really only referring to the alternative declensional endings. And all the other irregularities to be remembered (There are quite a few!)

I think you need to distinguish between a pedagogical grammar and a reference grammar. A pedagogical grammar will give you the broad outlines you need to make your way through a Latin (in this case) text, while a reference grammar is more comprehensive and tries to give a complete description of everything. <br /><br />What is your aim? Is it to read and understand Latin texts, or are you interested in grammar for its own sake? It is possible for someone to read and write their own language without having studied the formal grammar, and I think beyond a certain point the same is true for a foreign language. <br /><br />If your aim is just to read and understand, I don't think you need to know the historical developments from PIE unless you're particularly interested in them or they help you remember the Latin forms. A lot of the more obscure forms and constructions are there for completeness' sake and can be looked up if necessary, but don't have to be learnt.

Very very much of the excess is great and useful. However, pages 100-140 (approximate) seem superfluous for even the most obsessive Latin lover. There are so many irregularities listed for the formation of adjectives on those pages that it becomes otiose to even attempt their memorization, and it is best to just leave it alone; concievably such information would help a student of Latin to guess what an adjectival form for a root word is, without having to go to a dictionary; but there are so many irregularities that it would be more economical of time to just read a dictionary.<br /><br />I do love the grammar, however. I wish there were three times as many pages on grammar and three times fewer for the etymology of roots. It would be one thing if he discussed how a particular word with a particular meaning changed across space and time - he only discusses, more or less, a vague and uninteresting etymology of stem vowels for which he knows not the meaning (Thus it is inappropriate to have used the word etymology, in the strictest of senses.)<br /><br />Note: I still believe that book to be a great culmination of the persuits to understand Latin grammar. I would still always recommend this book.

The only reason I enjoy this book is because it covers so many of the irregularities. Why would you prefer that they be omitted? After learning Latin thoroughly, this grammar is where you turn to find the little tidbits that they don't teach you in school (or in a book).

[quote author=Lumen_et_umbra link=board=3;threadid=529;start=0#4636 date=1061517839]<br />Please, someone, tell me that a fair majority of the information from pages 1 to 100 (approximately) is superfluous. It hurts trying to fit all that brick-a-brack into my brain... :-X :'(<br /><br />I am really only referring to the alternative declensional endings. And all the other irregularities to be remembered (There are quite a few!)<br />[/quote]<br /><br />You sound very like I felt when first having to deal with Bennett! I found myself wondering why he complicated matters explained so briefly in Wheelock! However, when I stopped reading Bennett in sections, trying to remember all the bits and pieces, and started using it as a reference, to try to find out why something was behaving the way it was in a text, I found Bennett much more useful than Wheelock ever was....<br /><br />So superfluous depends on what you're trying to do with the book. It may not be useful now, but there may come a time when you're glad of all those documented exceptions!<br /><br />Kilmeny